The GENIUS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE!

[Neubarth]

You have not yet produced one item of fact. All you do is quote buffoons who do not know what the FED charter is. STUPID!

You FED haters are all falling on your swords. How embarrassing!

 

[georgephillip]

On March 11, 2008 someone bought $1.7 million worth of put options on Bear Stearns stock giving that person the right to sell 5.7 million shares of Bear stocks at $30 per share seven trading days in the future.

Bear was trading at $65 per share when those options were bought.

This one item of fact did not go unnoticed at Bloomberg: "It's not even on the page of rational behavior unless you know something" was how one financial writer summed it up.

What someone knew was that over the next seven trading days millions of shares of Bear Stearns stock would be bought but never delivered. Delivery failure happens regularly, often for innocent reasons.

In this case millions of shares of Bear stock went undelivered over the seven trading day period between when the put options were bought and sold, artificially increasing the supply of Bear Stearns stock while demand remained constant.

Increase supply while demand remains fixed and price plummets.

Which is exactly what happened to Bear Stearns in March of '08 and now two years later we've just learned the Fed covered up this apparent fraud by using tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to cover Bear's toxic assets and smooth the way for JP Morgan's takeover of Bear Stearns.

This is an example of the true "genius" of central banks.

See: You Tube: Bear Stearns Collapse (about 50,000 views)

 

[Neubarth]

On March 11, 2008 someone bought $1.7 million worth of put options on Bear Stearns stock giving that person the right to sell 5.7 million shares of Bear stocks at $30 per share seven trading days in the future.

Bear was trading at $65 per share when those options were bought.

This one item of fact did not go unnoticed at Bloomberg: "It's not even on the page of rational behavior unless you know something" was how one financial writer summed it up.

What someone knew was that over the next seven trading days millions of shares of Bear Stearns stock would be bought but never delivered. Delivery failure happens regularly, often for innocent reasons.

In this case millions of shares of Bear stock went undelivered over the seven trading day period between when the put options were bought and sold, artificially increasing the supply of Bear Stearns stock while demand remained constant.

Increase supply while demand remains fixed and price plummets.

Which is exactly what happened to Bear Stearns in March of '08 and now two years later we've just learned the Fed covered up this apparent fraud by using tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to cover Bear's toxic assets and smooth the way for JP Morgan's takeover of Bear Stearns.

This is an example of the true "genius" of central banks.

See: You Tube: Bear Stearns Collapse (about 50,000 views)

More of your low IQ blathering nonsense. So WHO did WHAT? Somebody bought a put option that paid off handsomely. And this is in what way related to the FED and its effort to prevent a financial collapse?

Might as well say that it was shining brightly in San Diego today, but it was snowing in Philadelphia and that proves that the FED is controlling the weather.

Where is the direct correlation? Somehow logic totally avoids your brain processes.

 

[Oddball]

"Not worth a Continental"....Says it all.

 

[Neubarth]

"Not worth a Continental"....Says it all.

The Continental was a good car. Peace.

 

[georgephillip]

Did the Fed violate its charter on June 25 & 26, 1998 when it decided to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act by allowing the merger of Travelers and Citicorp to form Citigroup?

 

[Neubarth]

Did the Fed violate its charter on June 25 & 26, 1998 when it decided to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act by allowing the merger of Travelers and Citicorp to form Citigroup?

Dude, the FED never repealed the Glass Steagall Act. Since when have they had the rights of Congress? Damn, you clowns are so silly. I want you to explain how the FED is going to take all of the Oxygen out of the air so they can store it in those empty banks and charge people to breath.

 

[georgephillip]

The public hearing held at the Federal Reserve on June 25 and June 26, 1998 effectively allowed the Fed to sign off on the merger between Travelers and Citicorp months before congress officially repealed Glass-Steagall in November of 1999.

Matthew Lee testified to the denial of legal ethics, the legislative branch, and the truth at that Federal hearing:

"...we think (the merger application) should be dismissed based on improper communications that have taken place between Travelers, Citicorp, and the Federal Reserve Board.

"Prior to the deal even being announced and the application being submitted, not only did the two CEOs of the two institutions meet with Chairman Greenspan we found that, in fact, there was very detailed preapproval sought for particular processes...We think it is tainted."


See: CounterPunch>Obama's Economic Brain Trust by Pam Martins (April 2-4, 2010)

 

[Neubarth]

The public hearing held at the Federal Reserve on June 25 and June 26, 1998 effectively allowed the Fed to sign off on the merger between Travelers and Citicorp months before congress officially repealed Glass-Steagall in November of 1999.

Matthew Lee testified to the denial of legal ethics, the legislative branch, and the truth at that Federal hearing:

"...we think (the merger application) should be dismissed based on improper communications that have taken place between Travelers, Citicorp, and the Federal Reserve Board.

"Prior to the deal even being announced and the application being submitted, not only did the two CEOs of the two institutions meet with Chairman Greenspan we found that, in fact, there was very detailed preapproval sought for particular processes...We think it is tainted."


See: CounterPunch>Obama's Economic Brain Trust by Pam Martins (April 2-4, 2010)

You still have not posted one truth about the FED passing legislation or violating law or anything else that you pretend is happening.

Greenspan would be in the right by seeking detail and preapproval for anything that he had questions about. One must remember that there are no specifications in law if there were never any questions asked or judgments passed down previously on an issue that has come to the fore. You have to have judgments to go by. If you can not find those judgments you ask for further detail and preapproval by the entity that would have jurisdiction. Where there is no restraining influence an initial judgment can be made and then put to the legal process for approval.

Just because somebody "thinks" that a process was not fully tested (i.e. tainted) does not mean that they are right or that anybody else is wrong. Even if ten to twenty years later a judgment is passed that something should not have been done in "such and such" a fashion does not mean that anybody was outside the law in their initial action. It just means that in the future it will be done in accordance with the new legal interpretation. Where judgments have not been made about an issue, somebody has to take the step to make the decision so that judgments can then be determined. Law is being written every day. All decisions are not cut and dried decisions and many times they have been overturned on appeal.

Were any of Greenspan's decisions overturned in the past twenty years? If not, what do you claim was wrong about FED open market conduct that all of the courts did not see? Are you prepared to take your allegations to court to get a decision? Are you prepared to be laughed at for being incompetent regarding your foolish understanding of law? Are you prepared to be sued for making false allegations?

All I have seen from you are false allegations and innuendo. Obviously, you are deranged and too ignorant to be able to explain yourself.

 

[georgephillip]

"One must remember there are no specifications in law if there were never any questions asked or judgments passed down previously on an issue that has come to the fore."

Tell me what you "think" you mean by the above sentence.